Black person. Injustice. Can I put you in prison for $50,000 per year?

[bullseyelqcs]

You are owed due process. Absent misconduct, you received it. If you have received due process, nothing has been stolen from you, and your conviction is not unjust. Again, I am not against compensation for wrongful convictions. I am just not convinced the convicted person is entitled to it as a matter of principle.

If you didn't do the crime, then a conviction is most assuredly unjust. Your life was indeed stolen from you, and you would deserve to be compensated for that as a matter of principle.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Long, who is Black, was accused of raping a White woman in 1976. An all-White jury found him guilty of rape and burglary and sentenced him to life in prison. After maintaining his innocence, and pursuing a lifetime of appeals and denied motions, he was released by a pardon from the governor in December 2020 after the courts found Long had been wrongly convicted. Since his sentencing, "a trickle of post-trial disclosures has unearthed a troubling and striking pattern of deliberate police suppression of material evidence," US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephanie Thacker wrote.

After spending 44 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit, this man says his life is worth more than $750,000 | CNN

Ronnie Long sat in jail in North Carolina for 44 years for a crime he didn't commit, and now he is planning to fight a law that says he is only owed $750,000.

www.cnn.com

Yeah, because hiding evidence and keeping black people off the jury is "due process"

What's your point? I'm speaking generally. If there was misconduct in this case, as I've already said MULTIPLE TIMES, compensation is due.

 

[Craig234]

I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that there's no objective right to compensation for an incorrect conclusion by a panel of twelve disinterested jurors if there wasn't any malfeasance. You got the due process to which you were entitled. Your rights weren't violated.

Unsurprisingly for a Libertarian, that's a very narrow, hard-hearted viewpoint that doesn't understand the moral issues.

 

[Yakshi]

It just isn't logical to argue that his rights haven't been violated.

A person in prison for a crime he didn't commit has necessarily had many of his rights violated.

Can he engage in his right to free assembly?

Can he bear arms?

The list gets quite long.

This isn't an argument. It is an incorrect belief being corrected by others.

It is also antithetical to libertarianism.

 

[Craig234]

What's your point? I'm speaking generally. If there was misconduct in this case, as I've already said MULTIPLE TIMES, compensation is due.

I'll just say this once here. We as a society create a criminal justice system and give it the power to arrest, try, and convict people to jail. Our moral basis for taking that action is the decision that crimes justify it, and we make an effort to get the verdicts right. When we don't, OUR system has failed and hugely wronged someone, and the society that made that imperfect system owes that person, without 'malfeasance', just imperfection. With malfeasance we owe more.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Unsurprisingly for a Libertarian, that's a very narrow, hard-hearted viewpoint that doesn't understand the moral issues.

I do understand the moral issue. Which is why I just said it was moral to provide compensation.

 

[Craig234]

It is also antithetical to libertarianism.

I don't even like to dignify 'Libertarianism' as if it were a coherent set of views, it's basically a hodge-podge motivated by narrow urges, unwittingly resulting in disaster and injustice they have to rationalize, as the poster is doing here.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It just isn't logical to argue that his rights haven't been violated.

A person in prison for a crime he didn't commit has necessarily had many of his rights violated.

Can he engage in his right to free assembly?

Can he bear arms?

The list gets quite long.

This isn't an argument. It is an incorrect belief being corrected by others.

It is also antithetical to libertarianism.

His right was to not be deprived of his rights without due process of law. Whether this particular person received it without misconduct on behalf of the state appears to be in question. But I'm speaking more broadly.

 

[Craig234]

I do understand the moral issue. Which is why I just said it was moral to provide compensation.

I don't think you do, and you said the opposite, unless there is malfeasance. I'll quote you, " All I'm saying is that there's no objective right to compensation for an incorrect conclusion by a panel of twelve disinterested jurors if there wasn't any malfeasance. "

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I don't even like to dignify 'Libertarianism' as if it were a coherent set of views, it's basically a hodge-podge motivated by narrow urges, unwittingly resulting in disaster and injustice they have to rationalize, as the poster is doing here.

Translation: "I disagree with it so I'm going to convince myself it's evil."

 

[Craig234]

His right was to not be deprived of his rights without due process of law. Whether this particular person received it without misconduct on behalf of the state appears to be in question. But I'm speaking more broadly.

Post #30 corrected you.

 

[Craig234]

Translation: "I disagree with it so I'm going to convince myself it's evil."

You should not try to translate. Here's an equivalent quality translation of your post: "Bugs Bunny has a crush on Melania trump".

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I don't think you do, and you said the opposite, unless there is malfeasance. I'll quote you, " All I'm saying is that there's no objective right to compensation for an incorrect conclusion by a panel of twelve disinterested jurors if there wasn't any malfeasance. "

If you'll read the post to which I was responding, it says compensation is the moral choice. I said that I didn't disagree with that.

Anyway, the fact that I disagree with your position doesn't mean I don't understand the moral issue involved.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Post #30 corrected you.

"Post #30 disagreed with [me]" is more accurate.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

His right was to not be deprived of his rights without due process of law. Whether this particular person received it without misconduct on behalf of the state appears to be in question. But I'm speaking more broadly.

Wouldn't due process require that everything possible was done to make sure that the right person was on trial for the crime in question?

 

[Yakshi]

Wouldn't due process require that everything possible was done to make sure that the right person was on trial for the crime in question?

Or if twelve hillbillies vote to convict a black defendant just to get to lunch early, has due process been satisfied?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Wouldn't due process require that everything possible was done to make sure that the right person was on trial for the crime in question?

This is what the investigation is for: developing leads and gathering evidence that points to a suspect. When enough evidence is available to convince a prosecutor they can convince 12 people of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they proceed to trial.

 

[Felis Leo]

I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that there's no objective right to compensation for an incorrect conclusion by a panel of twelve disinterested jurors if there wasn't any malfeasance. You got the due process to which you were entitled. Your rights weren't violated.

For what it is worth, Grizzly Adams, I do understand where you are coming from. But the problem is that even when all the rules are followed, the result is unjust because the rules are unjust. Under the present law, the prosecution can withhold and prevent exculpatory evidence from being considered at trial. And that is not malfeasance; it is completely legal and standard operating procedure, especially when it comes to things such as the hearsay exception, in which a defendant's statements against interest are considered evidence but their exculpatory statements cannot be considered. And then due process becomes a figleaf when the only people who get quality legal counsel are people with access to money or at the very least good credit to hire a private criminal defense attorney. Public defenders are notorious timeservers and/or overworked. That is not to say that there are not good public defenders, but if you are poor and forced to rely on a public defender, they almost always advise plea deals even when you are innocent. So even if your rights are not violated, they can still be unjustly stripped from you under the color of law.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

This is what the investigation is for: developing leads and gathering evidence that points to a suspect. When enough evidence is available to convince a prosecutor they can convince 12 people of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they proceed to trial.

The only negative to your post is that you said evidence that points to A subject....not inherently the RIGHT suspect.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

For what it is worth, Grizzly Adams, I do understand where you are coming from. But the problem is that even when all the rules are followed, the result is unjust because the rules are unjust. Under the present law, the prosecution can withhold and prevent exculpatory evidence from being considered at trial. And that is not malfeasance; it is completely legal and standard operating procedure, especially when it comes to things such as the hearsay exception, in which a defendant's statements against interest are considered evidence but their exculpatory statements cannot be considered. And then due process becomes a figleaf when the only people who get quality legal counsel are people with access to money or at the very least good credit to hire a private criminal defense attorney. Public defenders are notorious timeservers and/or overworked. That is not to say that there are not good public defenders, but if you are poor and forced to rely on a public defender, they almost always advise plea deals even when you are innocent. So even if your rights are not violated, they can still be unjustly stripped from you under the color of law.

Wish I could like this 100X!!!!

 

[aociswundumho]

I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that there's no objective right to compensation for an incorrect conclusion by a panel of twelve disinterested jurors if there wasn't any malfeasance. You got the due process to which you were entitled. Your rights weren't violated.

Why does there have to be malfeasance? Seems to me just getting it wrong is enough.

Also, due process is defined by the state. I could argue that putting my life in the hands of twelve people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty violates my right to due process.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

For what it is worth, Grizzly Adams, I do understand where you are coming from. But the problem is that even when all the rules are followed, the result is unjust because the rules are unjust. Under the present law, the prosecution can withhold and prevent exculpatory evidence from being considered at trial. And that is not malfeasance; it is completely legal and standard operating procedure, especially when it comes to things such as the hearsay exception, in which a defendant's statements against interest are considered evidence but their exculpatory statements cannot be considered. And then due process becomes a figleaf when the only people who get quality legal counsel are people with access to money or at the very least good credit to hire a private criminal defense attorney. Public defenders are notorious timeservers and/or overworked. That is not to say that there are not good public defenders, but if you are poor and forced to rely on a public defender, they almost always advise plea deals even when you are innocent. So even if your rights are not violated, they can still be unjustly stripped from you under the color of law.

I agree with a fair bit of what you said. Unfortunately, error is unavoidable in a system constructed by people, and the realities of limited resources for public defenders are unfortunate realities.

Again, to be crystal clear, I have no problem compensating people for their incarceration when they are later found to be factually innocent. I actually favor it. The only thing with which I disagree is the notion that it is owed to them and they have an inalienable right to it, or that an incorrect verdict is somehow evidence that the system is broken.

 

[HangLow]

I agree with a fair bit of what you said. Unfortunately, error is unavoidable in a system constructed by people, and the realities of limited resources for public defenders are unfortunate realities.

Again, to be crystal clear, I have no problem compensating people for their incarceration when they are later found to be factually innocent. I actually favor it. The only thing with which I disagree is the notion that it is owed to them and they have an inalienable right to it, or that an incorrect verdict is somehow evidence that the system is broken.

********

*******

********

********​